How could the Book of Ecclesiastes date back to the time of Solomon when it contains Persian loanwords from hundreds of years later?
>>18400075Enjoy Hell.
>>18400079>
>>18400075There’s also the Book of Daniel. The text despite claiming to have been written in the 6th century BC uses… Greek loanwords. They're only used briefly in Daniel 3 and are used to refer to instruments, but while there was some minor trade between Greeks and the Near East in the 6th century, it wasn't enough for the formal Aramaic of the Babylonian court to adopt specific Greek terminology. The Babylonians already had their own perfectly fine words for these instruments, there would have been no practical reason to use Greek terms. If the Book of Daniel was actually written in a pre-Alexandrian Middle East, then Greek loanwords should not be present at all.
>>18400079Great rebuttal, no notes
Because Ezra miraculously restored the scriptures, in square Aramaic. Basically, he effectively translated Moses and the other writings.It is actually orthodox to say the Torah was written by Moses, but edited by Ezra the scribe.>>18400096>the Book of Daniel was actually written in a pre-Alexandrian Middle East, then Greek loanwords should not be present at all.It doesn't follow, because Greek linguistic influence in the Middle East existed before Alexander's conquest spread the language proper and ensured it's continual dominance for centuries.Loan words spread all the time without military conquests to force linguistic exchange. Greek colonies existed all over the Mediterranean centuries before Alexander, so trade would be a source of introgression.Greek mercenaries could also account for this presence in Achaemenid Aramaic. The musical instrument names you're referring to would be natural candidates for direct adoption from Greek, and that's what you see in the text. Consider the word "guitar" as a good example of this phenomenon.
>>18400075On the contrary, Persian contains loanwords from the Book of Ecclesiastes
>>18400621>>18400654Cope.
>>18400075Ecclesiastes was written in Hebrew.
>>18400075The entire OT was written after 400BCE. There's no evidence of its writings before 400BCE, and all evidence is after 400BCE.
>>18400795you dont need to be religious to know this is absolute nonsense.
>>18400767I don't think you understand what "loanwords" means.
>>18400621>Greek linguistic influence in the Middle East existed before Alexander's conquestCan you give examples of these linguistic influences on the Babylonian court?
>>18400885You already identified some examples in Daniel, right?Meaning you're ostensibly interested in that topic for whatever reason.So, why expect me to do that for you?I'm just here to point out your reasoning and argument is flawed, and that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from it's premise.Suppose these instruments were simply imported.Far from unlikely.
>>18400075Scribes were careful in the transcriptions but they do decide what to put in the scrolls and it does change. The Hebrew language did not remain static over all that time.>>18400795There's lots of evidence that the language of the OT was essentially the same, only more primitive, perhaps even leaving a lot out to save space. Things were constantly being updated to more modern and consistent ways of writing. Certainly, though, what we read today would not be the same word for word before 400BC.
All of this shit was dealt with a century ago in The Fundamentals.
>>18400079>Enjoy Hell.Every knee will bow, Anon. Yours as well.
>>18400075Because:All gods are mythologiesAll holy books are fictionalPolitics is TreacheryReligion is Brainwashing
>>18401292Hi rodent. Pray tell, what point do you think you are making?
